Hello Roger,

I agree that we can find much in the way of Squares and related layout tools being employed both in Europe, the Middle East, and Asian well before King Jame's time period. Yet I do not find clear evidence of any aspect (other than some in stone) begins to reflect the true Square Rule modalities as we find them starting in the 1760's (give of take) other than perhaps in some ship building which I am looking more into...I do agree further that during the 1600 we do find some limited evidence of work being conducted in both stone and timber that is moving toward the use of squares in the layout systems even more, yet the evidence both in literature and architecture is still dominated mostly by Scribe Rule systems of building and there is only some very rare and obscure evidence of Lining Methods of layout being found in timber framing though some in stone sculpture and within that context and ship building as well.

As to Line Rule systems using King James translation (1604 to 1611,) especially one not really related directly to timber framing, as a foundationally significant source for details in a layout method orgined predominantly in Asia over the last ~4000 years, is literary citation I would think applicable to this topic...but that is just my view. Since the Xia Dynasty ((c. 2070-1600 BCE) then the Shang Dynasty (1600-1050 BCE) I think I will have to keep on the path I currently am following for the topic of Line Rule, yet still do look for evidence of it everywhere.

To your observation of craft and my take on it, I would suggest that since I started in the Scribe Rule (then Square Rule) Dutch-Germanic style I understand very well these systems and how they "reshape the stock" not only in timber framing but most of the folk class of furniture design and manufacture as well. I have not discounted any of this, just moved on into the older Asian systems of applying design and layout from that culture's craft aesthetic and perspective. Not better...per se...just different and older.